Reiku said:
This thread is officially dead do to participant ignorance...
...I had a long, polite explanation of the many mistakes and misconceptions being made here--but my computer reset and I don't feel like typing it again.
Suffice to say that if you do not understand what the terms "pedophile" or "rape" actually mean, you should not be participating in a discussion about pedophiles and rape.
The uninformed comments filling this thread remind me of another gem of sex-related internet ignorance:
Some may find the comparison offensive...
...but then there's this:
First off, all the things you refer to as "sexually interefering" are actually rape, rape is engaging in any sexual activity without the other person's consent--children are unable to give consent, so any sexual act involving a child is an act of rape.
These are the definitions of "rape" and "paedophile" that i know of;
"rape 1 Pronunciation (rp)
n.
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
tr.v. raped, rap·ing, rapes
1. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.
2. To seize and carry off by force.
3. To plunder or pillage."
"Noun 1. paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children"
"Noun 1. paedophilia - sexual activity of an adult with a child"
Alot of people consider rape as to having forceful sexual intercourse or sexual intercourse with somone without their consent only though, and not all the other acts that go with it, which is why i asked how KrazyKat personally defined rape.
Reiku said:
In answer to you question, Tokis-Phoenix:
I think we should feel sorry for them.
I have a chance of having a loving, sexual relationship with my prefered type of partner--a pedophile can never have that, because the object of their desires is incapable of it.
Their only choices are abstinance or rape, while we at least have hope of finding a willing parter. If they do give in to their desires and commit rape, then they are a rapist, and should be treated as such--but until they do they should have our profound sympathy.
As for what should be done with a rapist, I really don't know. Prison is not a deterrant for emotion-driven crimes--nothing is. For a deterrant to work you have to logically consider the consequences just before going through with your crime, and someone who loses control of their emotions is not in a logical state.
Be it murder, rape, or some other kind of assault, these crimes are not usually committed from a logical, sane frame of mind.
Psychiatric care would seem to be the best option currently available, but I have doubts as to it's effectiveness. If this was pursued, however, it would be important to distingush between correcting a rapists lack of self control and "correcting" their sexual preferences.
I agree its wrong to "change" people, but raping children is none the less very wrong too, and thus i think people should do everything they can to supress such urges- you cannot change somones sexuality, you can though help them deal with it. In any society you go to, there will always be laws or negative feelings towards the subject of raping/having sex with children on the whole.
I feel sorry for somone who feels sexually attracted to children and cannot help it, but i would never feel sorry for somone who acts on those feelings- such actions not only often physically injure the victum but also seriously mentally scars the victum for their entire life. Sympathising for paedophiles who have committed crimes(as this is what this thread originally started out as with a specific example at the start), i think is completely out of the question.
Do i sympathise for the man who rapes a woman because he cannot get laid? No.
Do i sympathise for the cannibal who murders and eats somone because they cannot get human meat legally and freely? no.
Do i sympathise for the paedophile who rapes a 6 yr old child because no 6 yr old child in their right mind would consent to somthing like that? No.
I sympathise for these people that they have such conditions, but i do not symthasie for them when they cross the line i.e. do somthing so horrific and illegal.
I do believe prison is a deterrant for "emotion-driven crimes" as you put it, as if prison did not exist most people would cross those lines in an instant that they had so struggled not to cross before because of the consequences. Do you honestly believe that if we didn't have prison, that crime rates would be pretty much the same?
Reiku said:
As for the child pornography argument...
1) It's not that easy to get. Believe me, I've tried. When I first began puberty I became very interested in sex but did not want to see pornography of people almost a decade older than me, so I tried very hard to find materials involving people of my own age group.
I honestly wouldn't know how difficult it is to get hold of child porn, but if you look at glitters case you will note he managed to find thousands of it;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/517604.stm